TALPA ARC Matrix Validation An Industry Perspective Presented by - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TALPA ARC Matrix Validation – An Industry Perspective Presented by Mr. Chet Collett, Manager – Flight Standards Alaska Airlines 2011 International Winter Operations Conference October 5, 2011

Topics  Takeoff And Landing Performance Assessment Aviation Rulemaking Committee (TALPA ARC) Background  Scope of TALPA ARC Effort  Runway Surface Condition Reporting  Runway Surface Condition Matrix  Matrix Validation - Industry Perspective  Airplane Performance – By the Numbers 2011 International Winter Operations Conference October 5, 2011

TALPA ARC Background  Following the 8 December 2005 landing overrun of a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-700 at Chicago’s Midway Airport, FAA established an internal team to review related FAA regulations and policies as well as industry practices  The FAA team found deficiencies in several areas, most notably in the lack of a standard and accurate means to assess runway surface conditions to determine landing performance at the time of arrival  As a result, on 31 August 2006, the FAA published Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO) 06012, “Landing Assessments at Time of Arrival (Turbojets)” to provide guidance for the operational aspect of contaminated runway landings  The FAA formed the Takeoff and Landing Performance Assessment (TALPA) Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to provide recommendations for rulemaking to address the identified safety risk 2011 International Winter Operations Conference October 5, 2011

TALPA ARC Participants Airplane Operators Part 121 Airplane Operators Regulatory Authorities  ABX Air Part 91-K/125/135  Alaska  FAA (Airports, Flight Standards,  Alpha Flying, Inc Certification, NOTAMS, Rulemaking, Legal)  American Eagle  Bombardier Flexjet  Transport Canada  American  Chantilly Air  Continental  Brazilian Certification Authority  Flight Works  Delta  EASA (Limited Participation)  Express Jet  Jet Solutions  Federal Express  Conoco Phillips Alaska Other Organizations  Northwest  Net Jets  Pinnacle  Air Transport Association  Pogo Jet, Inc  Southwest  Airline Pilots Association  United  Airports Council International Airplane Manufacturers  UPS  Allied Pilots Association  US Airways  Airbus  National Air Carrier Association  Boeing  National Business Aviation Association Airports  Bombardier  National Transportation Safety Board  Cherry Capital  Cessna  Neubert Aero Corporation  Chicago Airport System  Eclipse  Regional Airline Association  Chicago O’Hare  Embraer  Southwest Airlines Pilot Association  Grand Rapids Regional  Gulfstream  Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport System  Allied Pilots Association  Hawker 2011 International Winter Operations Conference October 5, 2011

A Common Language  It quickly became apparent that the chain was broken and that a common runway surface condition description was needed between:  Those who report the conditions (Airports)  Those who transmit the information (NOTAMS, Air Traffic)  Those who provide airplane performance data (Manufacturers)  Those who use the runway surface condition and airplane performance data to assess landing performance capability (Flightcrew and dispatchers)  Reviewed existing ICAO, EASA/JAA, FAA terms/methods 2011 International Winter Operations Conference October 5, 2011

Current Runway Surface Condition Information  Runway Friction Measuring Devices, µ (or Mu) Reports  Pilot Braking Action Reports  Runway Surface Contamination Description (Type and Depth of Contamination) 2011 International Winter Operations Conference October 5, 2011

Problem With Using µ For Takeoff and Landing Performance Assessments  Limited runway surface conditions for which they are applicable  Conditions rarely exist during winter storm events for use of the devices  Often used and reported outside of device manufacturers’ limitations for their use  Lack of repeatable results with same type of measuring device, or same device with consecutive measuring runs  Device calibration concerns and procedures  No operationally usable correlation between the different devices  FAA concern of operationally usable correlation between reported µ and aircraft stopping performance 2011 International Winter Operations Conference October 5, 2011

Problem With Using Pilot Braking Action Reports  Subjective  No standard definition of the pilot braking action reporting terms  No training or guidance given to pilots on how or when to report braking action  Until first aircraft lands and provides report no information is available  Unknown correlation of reports between different airplane types  Most airplane manufacturers do not provide performance data in terms of pilot braking action  Nevertheless, in many cases overrun accident analysis has shown pilot reports to often be more accurate than other forms of runway surface condition information 2011 International Winter Operations Conference October 5, 2011

Problem With Using Runway Surface Contamination Descriptions (Type and Depth of Contamination)  Typically only available through NOTAM information  Not updated in a timely manner  Varying terms and definitions  Patchy  Thin  Sanded  Dry snow vs. Wet snow  Wet snow vs. Slush  How to accurately measure depth?  Significant airplane performance differences between 1/8” and 1/4” of slush, wet snow or dry snow 2011 International Winter Operations Conference October 5, 2011

Runway Surface Condition Reporting TALPA ARC Recommendation:  Use a combination of the best attributes of each method  Improvements to address known deficiencies  Beta test proposed method  Completed – Winter 2010-11  Changes to the Final TALPA ARC Matrix complete 2011 International Winter Operations Conference October 5, 2011

Runway Surface Condition Matrix  Aligns runway surface conditions reported by airport operators to contaminated landing performance data supplied by the airplane manufacturer  Provides a shorthand method of relaying runway surface condition information to flightcrews through the use of runway condition codes to replace the reporting of µ readings to flightcrews  Provides for a standardized method of reporting runway surface conditions for all airports  Will provide more detailed information for the flightcrew to make operational decisions  Standardized pilot braking action report terminology  Is not perfect, based on the best information available today and a significant improvement over current practices 2011 International Winter Operations Conference October 5, 2011

TALPA ARC Matrix after Validation 2011 International Winter Operations Conference October 5, 2011

Pilot Version of Matrix 13

Runway Surface Condition 14

Runway Condition Codes and Equivalent BA 15

Braking Action Terms and Definitions 16

Use of Runway Friction Measuring Device Readings, µ  Only to be used by airport operator to further assess if the runway condition code should be downgraded from that associated with the contamination type, depth, and temperature.  Cannot be used to upgrade runway condition code - with one notable exception  Not to be reported to flightcrews but remains one of the tools in the airport operators tool box for assessing runway surface conditions, and effectiveness of clearing actions taken 2011 International Winter Operations Conference October 5, 2011

Mu Upgrade Exception 2. Runway Condition Codes of 1 or 0 may be upgraded to Code 3 if accompanied by Mu values 40 or greater. 2011 International Winter Operations Conference October 5, 2011

Proposed Many Changes To Runway Surface Conditions Reports (NOTAM)  Changes in terminology reported  Discontinued use of “patchy”, “trace”, and “thin”  Use of contamination terminology consistent with AFM landing performance data  Contamination descriptions provided in terms of type and depth of contaminant and percentage of runway coverage  Clear identification of runway and direction for which the report is applicable  Report provided in thirds of the runway  Runway condition code provided in thirds of runway length when any one third greater than 25% covered 2011 International Winter Operations Conference October 5, 2011

Proposed Many Changes To Runway Surface Conditions Reports (NOTAM) (continued) Runway Condition and Contamination Terms (for reporting)  Dry  Wet (also report runway type – smooth, grooved, PFC, or slippery when wet)  Water  Slush  Wet Snow  Dry Snow  Compacted Snow  Wet or Dry Snow over Compact Snow  Frost  Ice  Wet Ice 2011 International Winter Operations Conference October 5, 2011

Proposed Many Changes To Runway Surface Conditions Reports (NOTAM) (continued) Contaminant Depths to be Reported  1/8 inch (3 mm)  1/4 inch (6 mm)  1/2 inch (13 mm)  3/4 inch (19 mm)  1 inch (25 mm)  2 inches (51 mm)  3 inches (76 mm)  4 inches (102 mm) 2011 International Winter Operations Conference October 5, 2011

Proposed Many Changes To Runway Surface Conditions Reports (NOTAM) (continued) Contaminant Coverage to be Reported  1% to 10% → 10%  11% to 25% → 25%  26% to 50% → 50%  51% to 75% → 75%  75% to 100% → 100% 2011 International Winter Operations Conference October 5, 2011